IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE
`COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-611-RGA-MPT
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-612-RGA-MPT
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-613-RGA-MPT
`
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`COXCOM LLC and
`COX COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DIRECTV, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`TQ Delta Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CORP., DISH
`DISH NETWORK
`NETWORK LLC., DISH DBS CORP.,
`ECHOSTAR
`CORPORATION,
`and
`ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TIME WARNER CABLE INC. and TIME
`WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-614-RGA-MPT
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-615-RGA-MPT
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-616-RGA-MPT
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`PLAIINTIFF’S OOPENING CCLAIM COONSTRUCTTION BRIEEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INNTRODUCCTION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff TQ DDelta, LLC. (“TQD”) suubmits that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`its proposedd constructioons are suppported
`
`
`
`by the cllaim languagge, intrinsic
`
`
`
`
`
`record, andd strong extrrinsic evidennce, and shoould therefoore be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adopted
`
`
`
`by the Couurt. In contrrast, Defenddants propossed construcctions rewriite the claimms to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`import addditional limmitations or, iin some instances, to rennder the scoppe of the claaim ambiguoous.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`BRIEF INTRRODUCTIOON TO “MUULTICARRRIER” TECCHNOLOGGY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B T
`
`
`
`The asserted ppatents desccribe inventivve techniquees for improvving commuunication sysstems
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that transmit/receivee multicarrieer signals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A multicarrrier signal inncludes a nnumber of c
`
`
`
`
`
`arrier
`
`
`
`signals (oor carriers),
`
`
`
`each operatiing at a diffeerent sub-freequency of tthe overall frfrequency baand of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`one or moree bits (i.e., ““1” or
`
`
`
`
`
`the carrieer signal, and each of whhich has beeen modulatedd to encode
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“0”).
`
`
`
` Each carriier effective
`
`
`
`ly serves ass a separate
`
` sub-
`
`
`
`rying data. channnel for carr
`
`
`
`
`
` The carrrier signalss are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combined as a ggroup to prooduce a trannsmission siignal,
`
`
`
`
`
`whichh is transmittted across aa transmissioon medium
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(e.g.,
`
`
`
`phonee lines, coaxxial cable, thhe air, etc.) tto a receiverr. Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A (Deeclaration of f Dr. Chrissaan) at ¶ 19.
`
`
`
`In an exxample illusstrated on
`
`
`
`this page,
`
`four
`
`
`
`carrieers—Carrier
`
`
`
`1, Carrier 22, Carrier 3,, and Carrierr 4—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are ccombined ssimultaneou
`
`
`
`sly
`
`
`
`into oone
`
`
`
`transmiission
`
`
`
`signall. Id. at ¶ 20.
`.
`
`
`
`MMulticarrier
`
`
`
`systems maay use the pphase of carrriers encodde different
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bit values.
`
` For
`
`
`
`example,, a phase off zero may
`
`
`
`represent a
`
`
`
`bit value oof “1” and aa phase of ππ (or 180°)
`
`
`
`
`
` may
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`representt a bit value
`
`of “0”. In
`
`
`
`the illustratiion above, CCarriers 1, 2,, and 4 havee a phase of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`zero,
`
`
`
`and thereefore each reepresent a “
`
`
`
`1”. Carrier
`
`
`
`3 has as phhase of π, annd therefore
`
`
`
`
`
`represents aa “0”.
`
`
`
`Note, Caarrier 3 appeears to be innverted fromm the other c
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Carrier 3 has a phasee of π. Togeether, these ffour carriers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arriers, and
`
`that is how
`
`
`
`one can telll that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`encode inpuut bits havinng a binary vvalues
`
`
`
`multicarrierr transmissioon signal cann be a combbination of mmany
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of 1, 1, 00, and 1. In
`
`practice, a
`
`
`
`more thaan four carrriers (e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`
`hundreds oor even thoousands carrriers) and iin this wayy can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substantiially increasee the “speedd” or data caarrying capaccity of the syystem. Id. aat ¶ 21; see,
`
`
`
`
`
`also,
`
`
`
`id. at ¶¶ 222–27.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`PHASE SCRRAMBLINGG PATENTSS – ’158 ANND ’243 PATTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’158 andd ’243 patennts (collectivvely, “the phhase-scramblling patents””) explain hoow to
`
`
`
`P T
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reduce thhe “peak-to--average-powwer ratio” (“PAR”) of aa multicarriier transmisssion signal.
`
`
`
`
`
` The
`
`
`
`graph bellow illustrattes the conceepts of peak
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power and tthe average ppower of succh a transmiission
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signal. Thee peak ampl
`
`
`
`itude of a ssignal
`
`corresponds
`
`
`
`to the peakk power, annd the
`
`
`
`average
`
`
`
`ammplitude
`
`
`
`oof
`
`the
`
`
`
`ssignal
`
`corresponds
`
`
`
`to the aveerage powerr. If
`
`
`
`
`
`PAR of a trransmission
`
`
`
`signal is hiigh, a
`
`system may
`
`
`
`unt of consume aa high amou
`
`
`
`
`
`power. Alsso, a high-PPAR signal
`
`
`
`may
`
`s c a c P s p
`
`
`
`exceed tthe acceptabble operatinng ranges off transceiveer and/or reeceiver commponents, theereby
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`degrading the signall (e.g., caussing the signnal to be “cclipped” or
`
`
`
`distorted).
`
`See Ex. B
`
`(’158
`
`
`
`patent) att 2:27–29; seee also Ex. AA at ¶ 28.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`The inventors of the phase-scrambling patents recognized that when the phases of the
`
`carriers are not sufficiently random, the PAR of the transmission signal can increase greatly. Id.
`
`at 2:17–27. With this in mind, the inventors conceived of ways to reduce the PAR of a
`
`transmission signal by scrambling the phases of the carriers. One of the inventive techniques in
`
`the phase-scrambling patents is to scramble the phases of the carriers according to a pseudo-
`
`random number. Id. at 4:55–58. By using a pseudo-random number, the transceiver can perform
`
`phase scrambling by varying the carrier phases in a sufficiently random way. In this manner, the
`
`PAR of a transmission signal can be reduced. By using the same pseudo-random number that
`
`was used by the transmitter for phase scrambling, a receiver can descramble the carrier phases to
`
`recover the transmitted data. Id. at 4:61–65; see also Ex. A at ¶¶ 28–31.
`
` “transceiver”1
`A.
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`communications device capable of transmitting
`and receiving data over the same physical
`medium wherein the transmitting and receiving
`functions are implemented using at least some
`common circuitry
`The parties agree that the transceiver is capable of transmitting and receiving. However,
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`communications device with a transmitter and
`receiver
`
`without more, Defendants’ proposed construction is unreasonably broad and can be interpreted,
`
`incorrectly, to mean that that the transmitter and receiver are separate or isolated and are
`
`functionally wholly unrelated.
`
`A “transceiver” is a well-understood term of art and under the generally accepted
`
`definition, a transceiver is capable of transmitting and receiving and the transmitting and
`
`receiving functions are implemented using at least some common circuitry. Ex. A at ¶ 33; Ex. J
`
`at p. 1028; and Ex. N (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary) at p. 1253 (defining transceiver
`
`1 This term appears in at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents, and the same
`construction is being proposed in each instance.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`as a radio transmitter-receiver that uses many of the same components for both transmission and
`
`reception”). In accordance with this widely accepted definition of transceiver, the ’404 patent
`
`specification similarly contemplates that the transmitter and receiver of the transceiver
`
`necessarily share components or circuitry. Ex. A at ¶ 33; and Ex. D (the ’404 patent) at Fig. 1.
`
`For example, state memory, controller, PLL and clock circuitry are shared between the
`
`transmitter and receiver of the transceiver described in the ’404 patent. Id. In contrast, the broad
`
`definition of “transceiver” proposed by Defendants could incorrectly be interpreted to include
`
`those types of designs where the transmitter is isolated from the receiver – something not
`
`contemplated by the patents-in-suit and the extrinsic evidence. Ex. A at ¶ 33.
`
`Separately, in light of the disclosure of the patents-in-suit, a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art, would understand that the transmitting and receiving must occur over the same
`
`physical medium. Ex. A at ¶ 34. Defendants’ construction does not account for this. Under
`
`Defendants’ construction, the transmitter and receiver could be construed as communicating over
`
`different physical medium, for e.g., transmitting over cable and receiving over the air or
`
`wirelessly. However, any construction that contemplates transmitting over one medium and
`
`receiving over another medium is incorrect and must be rejected. . Ex. A at ¶ 34.
`
`Based on the foregoing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that a “transceiver” is a “communications device that is capable of transmitting and receiving
`
`data over the same physical medium wherein the transmitting and receiving functions are
`
`implemented using at least some common circuitry.”
`
`“multicarrier”2
`B.
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`2 This term appears in at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents, and the same
`construction is being proposed in each instance.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`that are
`having multiple carrier signals
`combined as a group by
`simultaneous
`modulation to produce a transmission signal
`The parties agree that “multicarrier” means “having multiple carrier signals that are
`
`that are
`having multiple carrier signals
`combined to produce a transmission signal
`
`combined…to produce a transmission signal.” Defendants’ proposal, however, does not explain
`
`what is meant by “combined.” Consequently, Defendants’ proposed construction is overbroad
`
`because it potentially includes techniques (such as single-carrier techniques) that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand to be outside of the scope of “multicarrier” systems.
`
`The term “multicarrier” is a well-understood term of art, and it refers to communication
`
`systems that have multiple carrier signals (also referred to as sub-carriers or sub-channels). Ex.
`
`B at 1:35–41. Several multicarrier techniques are disclosed in the ’158 patent—e.g., discrete
`
`multitone modulation (“DMT”), orthogonally multiplexed quadrature amplitude modulation
`
`(“OQAM”), discrete wavelet multitone (“DWMT”) modulation, and orthogonal frequency
`
`division multiplexing (“OFDM”). Ex. B. at 3:34–39. In contrast, single carrier systems do not
`
`have multiple carrier signals and are, therefore, not “multicarrier” systems. Ex. A at ¶ 36.
`
`As a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood, multiple carriers are
`
`“combined” as a group by simultaneous modulation to produce a transmission signal in a
`
`multicarrier system. The ’158 patent reflects this understanding. For example, in FIG. 2 at step
`
`130, carrier signals are combined into a transmission signal. FIG. 2. As another example, the
`
`’158 describes the transmission signal as a “linear combination of the multiple carriers.” Ex. B.
`
`at 1:47–49; see Ex. A at ¶ 37.
`
`The carriers are also “modulated” to produce the transmission signal. See, e.g., Ex. B. at
`
`2:36–38 (“The present invention features a system and method that scrambles the phase
`
`characteristics of the modulated carrier signals in a transmission signal.”); id. at 3:1–5 (“In one
`
`embodiment, a modulator, in communication with the phase scrambler, modulates bits of an
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`input signal onto the carrier signals having the substantially scrambled phase characteristics to
`
`produce a transmission signal with a reduced PAR”). Ex. A at ¶ 38.
`
`But, as discussed above, these signals are not combined sequentially. Instead, they are
`
`combined as a group by simultaneous modulation. See Ex. A at ¶ 39.
`
`The ’158 even describes the specific technology that allows for the simultaneous
`
`modulation of a group of carrier signals. The modulator 46 (which performs multicarrier
`
`modulation) uses an inverse fast Fourier transform (“IFFT”) or, in another embodiment, an
`
`inverse discrete Fourier transform (“IDFT”). Ex. B. at 4:19–27. In multicarrier systems, these
`
`components operate by receiving a plurality of frequency-domain values and modulating them
`
`simultaneously into a corresponding plurality of time-domain symbols. The time domain
`
`symbols are processed to form a transmission signal. See Ex. A at ¶ 40.
`
`Accordingly, “multicarrier” should be construed to mean “having multiple carrier signals
`
`that are combined as a group by simultaneous modulation to produce a transmission signal.”
`
`C.
` “carrier signal” (claims 1 and 15 of the ’158 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`plain and ordinary meaning
`wave that can be modulated to carry data
`Defendant proposes a construction of “carrier signal” that does not reflect the technology
`
`of the ’158 patent. None of the techniques disclosed in the ’158 patent involve modulation of a
`
`“wave” to carry data, and such a construction has no support. Instead, as discussed above in
`
`Section III.B, the ’158 patent discloses a “multicarrier” system, which means “having multiple
`
`carrier signals that are combined as a group by simultaneous modulation to produce a
`
`transmission signal.” And specifically, an IFFT or IDFT is used to perform the modulation.
`
`These components, however, do not modulate a “wave.” Instead, an IFFT or IDFT receive a
`
`plurality of frequency-domain symbols and modulate them simultaneously into a corresponding
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`plurality of time-domain symbols (which are further processed to form the transmission signal).
`
`A wave is only generated after modulation, not before. Defendants’ proposed construction is
`
`therefore not supported by the disclosure of the ’158 patent. Instead, a “carrier signal” or
`
`“carrier” as used in a multicarrier system is well-understood by a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`D.
`“determin[e/ing] a phase shift for the carrier signal” (claims 1 and 15 of the
`’158 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`use/using an equation to compute the degrees
`that the phase of the carrier signal can be
`shifted
`Defendants improperly attempt to narrow this construction by requiring that an
`
`“equation” be used to “compute” the “degrees” for a phase shift. Defendants seek to import
`
`extraneous words—“equation,” “compute,” and “degrees”—to define the word “determine.” But
`
`the ’158 patent imposes no requirement for the word “determine” to be viewed so narrowly.
`
`“Determine” is used throughout the ’158 patent without requiring an “equation to
`
`compute.” See, e.g., Ex. B. at Abstract; 2:4–8; 2:41–42; 2:56–58; 4:52–55; and 8:64–67. By
`
`asserting that an “equation” is required, Defendants are improperly importing a feature of one
`
`example embodiment into the claims. In fact, as repeatedly disclosed in the ’158 patent, an
`
`“equation” is not required to “determine a phase shift for the carrier signal.” See, e.g., id. at
`
`Abstract; 2:39–41; 2:58–60; 2:62–65; 4:50–55; and 6:32–38. Furthermore, there is no mention
`
`of “degrees” in the ’158 patent. Phase shifts can be determined using other representations, such
`
`as radians, or by changing the value of the data from which the phase is determined. These types
`
`of phase shift determinations should not be excluded from the scope of the claims.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “determin[e/ing] a phase shift for the carrier signal”
`
`should therefore be adopted.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`E.
`“scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals” (claim 1 of the
`’158 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`adjusting the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals by pseudo-randomly varying
`amounts
`The parties agree that a proper construction of this term requires “adjusting…by pseudo-
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`adjusting the phases of the modulated carrier
`signals by pseudo-randomly varying amounts
`
`randomly varying amounts.” Defendants, however, incorrectly assert that the “the phases of the
`
`modulated carrier signals” are adjusted. In addition to contradicting an ordinary artisan’s
`
`understanding of this term, Defendants’ proposed construction excludes the preferred
`
`embodiment (and all embodiments) disclosed in the ’158 patent. See, e.g., Sandisk Corp. v.
`
`Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that excludes a
`
`preferred embodiment, moreover, ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’”) (quoting Victronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Correctly construed, it is the “phase
`
`characteristics of the carrier signals” that are adjusted.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction requires that “the modulated carrier signals” have
`
`phases that are adjusted. In other words, there must already be a modulated carrier signal before
`
`phase adjustment. But there is no disclosure in the ’158 patent in which the phase of an already-
`
`modulated carrier signal is adjusted. Rather, in all of the disclosed embodiments, phase-
`
`scrambling is performed before modulation takes place. FIG. 2 (reproduced below) is
`
`illustrative. Step 120 is where phase scrambling takes place. See 6:51–57 (“The DMT
`
`transmitter 22 then combines (step 120) the phase shift computed for each carrier signal with the
`
`phase characteristic of that carrier signal. By scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier
`
`signals, the phase scrambler 66 reduces (with respect to unscrambled phase characteristics) the
`
`combined PAR of the plurality of carrier signals and, consequently, the transmission signal 38.”).
`
`And step 130 is where modulation takes place. See 8:17–19 (“The DMT transmitter 22 then
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`combiines (step 1330) the carrieer signals to
`
`
`
`
`
`form
`
`
`
`the traansmission
`
`
`
`signal 38.”)); 1:42–47 ((“The
`
`
`
`DMT
`
`
`
`transmitterr
`
`typically
`
`
`
`modulatess
`
`the
`
`phase
`
`
`
`characteristtic, or phasee, and ampllitude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of thee carrier siggnals using
`
`
`
`an Inverse
`
`Fast
`
`
`
`Fourieer Transformm (IFFT) …..”). Becausee step
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`120 iss performed
`
`
`
`before stepp 130, there
`
`is no
`
`
`
`discloosure in thee ’158 pate
`
`
`
`
`
`nt in whichh the
`
`phase
`
`
`
`of an alreaddy-modulate
`
`
`
`d carrier siggnal is
`
`
`
`adjustted.
`
`Properly
`
`
`
`understoood,
`
`the
`
`term
`
`the carrier
`
`
`
`phase usting the psignals” mmeans “adju
`
`
`
`teristics of hase charact“scramblling the ph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`characterristics of thee carrier signnals by pseuudo-randomlly varying aamounts.” SSee, e.g., 4:445–49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“The remmote receiveer 34 similarrly includes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a phase desscrambler 666' for use whhen demodullating
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`carrier signals that haave had their phase charracteristics aadjusted by tthe phase scrrambler 66 oof the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DMT trannsceiver 10.”). See Ex. AA at ¶ 41.
`
`
`FF.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaaintiff’s Prooposed Consstruction
`
`
`plain andd ordinary mmeaning
`
`
` “carrrier” (claimms 1, 7, and 114 of the ’2443 patent)
`D
`
`
`
`efendants’ PProposed CConstructionn
`
`
`
`wave thhat can be mmodulated too carry data
`
`
`
` ““Carrier” hass the same mmeaning as ““carrier signnal.” 1:38. TThe term “ccarrier” shouuld be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`given its plain and orrdinary meanning. See Seection III.C,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supra.
`
`
`GG.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaaintiff’s Prooposed Consstruction
`
`
`
`componeent that pseuudo-randomlly changes
`
`value of aa bit
`
`
`
`“bit scrambler” ((claims 1, 7,, 13, and 200 of the ’2433 patent)
`D
`
`
`
`efendants’ PProposed CConstructionn
`the compo
`
`
`
`nent that ppseudo-randoomly invertsts the
`
`
`a byte of daata one bit affter another
`bits in
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`While the parties agree that a “bit scrambler” must perform scrambling “pseudo-
`
`randomly,” Defendants’ proposed construction is unduly narrow because it is limited to one
`
`particular type of bit scrambling that is not required by any claim language or disclosure in the
`
`’243 patent, and is not in line with the understanding of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Specifically, there is no basis for requiring a “bit scrambler” to “invert[] the bits in a byte of data
`
`one bit after another.”
`
`The claims themselves demonstrate that a “bit scrambler” is a component that changes
`
`the value of a bit. Claim 1 is illustrative, and recites in relevant part: “scrambling, using the bit
`
`scrambler, a plurality of input bits to generate a plurality of scrambled output bits, wherein at
`
`least one scrambled output bit is different than a corresponding input bit.” By the plain language
`
`of the claims, a “bit scrambler” is used to change the value of a bit—i.e., at least one scrambled
`
`output bit is different than a corresponding input bit. Whether multiple bits (e.g., the bits of a
`
`byte of data) are scrambled one bit after another or in parallel is not addressed by the claim
`
`language and, thus, the claimed bit scrambler is not limited to one or the other. See Ex. A at ¶ 43.
`
`During the prosecution of the application that led to the ’243 patent, Applicant clarified
`
`the scope of the claimed “bit scrambler.” In Applicant’s Amendment and Response of November
`
`18, 2014, all of the independent claims were amended to recite that the “bit scrambler” scrambles
`
`(or is operable to scramble) “the plurality of input bits to generate a plurality of scrambled output
`
`bits, wherein at least one scrambled output bit is different than a corresponding input bit.” Ex. L.
`
`Applicant then explained:
`
`As discussed in Wikipedia, “A scrambler (or randomizer) can be either: An
`algorithm that converts an input string into a seemingly random output string of
`the same length (e.g., by pseudo-randomly selecting bits to invert), thus
`avoiding long sequences of bits of the same value; in this context, a randomizer
`is also referred to as a scrambler ....”
`Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, a “bit scrambler” is a component that pseudo-randomly
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`changes the value of a bit (i.e., inverts the bit from 10 or 01, or leaves the bit value
`
`unchanged). See Ex. A at ¶¶ 44–45.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is not only unsupported, it is vague and ambiguous
`
`because it can have various interpretations. For example, do all bits in a byte have to be
`
`inverted? Or can only some of the bits be inverted? A construction that does not have a clear
`
`meaning should not be adopted. See, e.g., Haliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244,
`
`1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is also unsupported because it includes unduly
`
`narrowing concepts that have no basis in the ’243 patent. Specifically, Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction requires that (1) “bits in a byte of data” be inverted (2) “one bit after another.” But
`
`a “bit scrambler” should not be limited this way. First, the word “byte” is not used in the ’243
`
`patent. There is no reason that only “bits in a byte of data” be inverted. Second, there is no
`
`support for only performing scrambling “one bit after another.” The sequence by which the bit
`
`scrambler changes bits—whether “one bit after another,” or otherwise—is immaterial to the
`
`construction of “bit scrambler.”
`
`Defendants’ vague, overly narrow, and unsupported proposed construction of “bit
`
`scrambler” should be rejected. Instead, a “bit scrambler” is simply a “component that pseudo-
`
`randomly changes the value of a bit.” Ex. A at ¶ 45.
`
`H.
` “phase scrambler” (claims 1, 7, 13, and 20 of the’243 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`component operable to adjust the phases of the
`component
`that adjusts
`the phases of
`carriers, by pseudo-randomly varying amounts
`modulated carrier signals by pseudo-randomly
`varying amounts
`
`The parties agree that a “phase scrambler” is a “component that adjusts [or operable to
`
`adjust] the phases…by pseudo-randomly varying amounts.” Defendants, however, mistakenly
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`assert that it is the phases of “modulated carrier signals” that are adjusted. But, as discussed
`
`supra in Section III.C, the phase-scrambling patents do not disclose adjusting phases of carrier
`
`signals that have already been modulated. Instead, modulation is performed after phase
`
`scrambling, not before as is required by Defendants’ proposed construction. See Section III.C,
`
`supra; Ex. C at FIG. 2, 1:40–45, 6:47–49, and 8:17–19.
`
`Properly understood, the term “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals”
`
`means “adjusting the phase characteristics of the carrier signals by pseudo-randomly varying
`
`amounts.” See, e.g., Ex. C. at 4:43–47 (“The remote receiver 34 similarly includes a phase
`
`descrambler 66' for use when demodulating carrier signals that have had their phase
`
`characteristics adjusted by the phase scrambler 66 of the DMT transceiver 10.”). See Ex. A at
`
`¶ 46.
`
`IV.
`
`LOW POWER MODE PATENTS – THE ’404 AND ’268 PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`“low power mode” (claims 6, 11, 16, ’404 patent and claims 2, 4, 12, 14, 16 18,
`the ’268 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`a state of operation in which power is
`consumed, but the amount of power consumed
`is less than when operating in a state with full
`data transmission capabilities
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction for “low power mode” is consistent with the plain
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`state of operation in which power to circuitry
`is reduced for the purpose of power
`conservation
`
`language of the phrase, which indicates that a lower amount of power is consumed in the mode.
`
`The specifications of the low power mode patents explain that transceivers in the “on” state
`
`“consume a significant amount of power, even when they are not actively transmitting or
`
`receiving data[.]” Ex. D (the ’404 patent) at 2:54–63. This “on” state or full power mode is a
`
`state where the transceiver has “full data transmission capabilities.” Id. at 8:21–23. Thus, it
`
`would be understood from the claim language and the specification that “low power” is relative
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`to full data transmission capability where greater power is consumed. Plaintiff’s proposed
`
`construction that “low power mode” means “a state of operation in which power is consumed,
`
`but the amount of power consumed is less than when operating in a state with full data
`
`transmission capabilities” is naturally aligned with the patent’s description and should be
`
`adopted. Ex. A at ¶¶ 70–72; see Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`
`1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (stating that a “construction that stays true to the claim language and most
`
`naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct
`
`construction.”).
`
`The Defendants’ proposed construction is in agreement that power consumption is
`
`reduced, but it is flawed in two ways. First, it could be interpreted to read on a state in which the
`
`transceiver is turned “off.” But, again, the plain language of the phrase indicates that the mode is
`
`a “low power” mode, not a “no power” mode. And, the Specification repeatedly refers to
`
`consuming reduced power, not to the absence of power consumption. See, e.g., Ex. D at 8:21–23
`
`(“[it] is generally desirable to limit . . . power consumption”); 6:1–5 (“[i]t is thus desirable that
`
`the transceiver be able to suspend operations and enter a ‘sleep’ mode in which it consumes
`
`reduced power when it is not needed for data transmission or reception”).
`
`Second, Defendants’ proposed construction imports a limitation that is cherry-picked
`
`from one of a number of example embodiments. The specification describes a number of ways
`
`in which lower power consumption might be achieved, e.g., ceasing transmission of data while
`
`continuing to receive data, ceasing transmission and reception of data, reducing the power
`
`supplied to certain analog circuitry (Ex. D. at 7:20–22), rendering dormant certain components
`
`(e.g., the FFT 56) (id. at 5:54–55), etc. The phrase “low power mode” does not dictate the
`
`details of any particular one of these means of lowering power consumption. Nevertheless,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction could be interpreted as being limited to a “low power mode”
`
`in which power supplied to certain part of the circuitry is reduced. This is an improper rewrite of
`
`the claims to import a requirement as to how the “low power mode” is achieved. See Electro
`
`Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Scis., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (noting that “[c]laims are
`
`not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the specification,” and that
`
`“although the specifications may well indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in a specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than such embodiments.”).
`
`B.
`
`“stor[e/ing], in [a/the] low power mode, at least one parameter” (claims 6, 11
`and 16 of the ’404 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`maintaining in memory at least one parameter
`associated with a mode of operation with full
`data transmission capabilities, while in a low
`power mode
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`maintain[ing] in memory throughout a/the low
`power mode, at least one parameter
`
`The parties agree that “storing, in the low power mode, at least one parameter” means
`
`“maintaining in memory . . . at least one parameter.” A dispute arises because Defendants’
`
`proposed construction seeks to read into the claims the duration during which the at least one
`
`parameter is maintained in memory, namely “throughout the low power mode.” This limitation
`
`finds no support in the plain language of this claim element because no duration for the storing
`
`operation is specified. Other claim elements may imply a timeframe for the storing operation.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’404 patent recites “exit from the low power [mode] and restore the
`
`full power mode by using the at least one [stored] parameter.” This would indicate that the
`
`parameter is being stored at or prior to the time the transceiver is exiting low power mode. But,
`
`again, the language “stor[e/ing], in [a/the] low power mode” alone does not dictate a timeframe
`
`or duration other than at some point during the low power mode. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 73–76.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`“fine gain parameter” (claims 6, 11 and 16 of the ’404 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a parameter used to determine power level on
`Indefinite
`a per subcarrier basis
`“Fine gain parameter” is well-understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. A
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that fine gain parameter as applied
`
`to a multicarrier modulation is a parameter used to determine power level on a per subcarrier
`
`basis. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 77–79. The Specification is consistent with this understanding. For
`
`example, the low power mode patents explain that a transceiver adjusts “the fine gains on the sub
`
`channels over which communication is to take place.” Ex. D at 3:14–16. (emphasis added).
`
`The low power mode patents further explains that the transmission fine gains are one example of
`
`a parameter that is stored. See, e.g., id. at 7:8; 7:41–42; and 8:11.
`
`Defendants’ assertion that “fine gain parameter” is indefinite is unsupported because the
`
`term is understood by those skilled in the art and that understanding is consistent with the
`
`Specification. See, e.g., Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2128 (2014)
`
`(“[D]efiniteness is to be evaluated from the perspective of someone skilled in the relevant art”;
`
`“[C]laims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.”).
`
`D.
`“bit allocation parameter” (claims 6, 11 and 16, ’404 patent)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a parameter used to determine a number of
`parameter specifying the number of bits to be
`bits to be carried by a subcarrier on a per
`carried by a subchannel
`subcarrier basis
`
`As an initial matter, based on the low power mode patents, the term subcarrier recited in
`
`Plaintiff’s construction and the term subchannel recited in Defendants’ proposed construction are
`
`synonymous. See Ex. D at FIG. 1A; Ex. A at ¶ 21. Further, the parties agree that a bit allocation
`
`parameter is related to the number of bits to be carried by a subcarrier/subchannel. The parties’
`
`disagreement stems from their respective interpret